Modern art
No, they're doing it now. This is what it looks like to carry out a war by stochastic terrorism. They just keep saying the conspiracy theory shit and doing these stunts and saying, "Our people just need to take matters in to their own hands!" And people carry out random attacks against things with playable deniability that they're leading it.
No one is drone striking Tucker Carlson, and they won't, no matter how many people he kills, how many synagogue or mosque attacks he's responsible for, because he can always just say, "oh, free speech. I didn't plan that. It's just a coincidence that every time there's a mass shootings the person follows my Twitter."
Read up on the Rwandan genocide. This is what they did. They ramped up dehumanizing rehetoric until people hacked their neighbors apart with machetes and locked buildings full of people and set them on fire. It was normal people carrying out the atrocities, but there was enough of a direct connection to end up in the international criminal court. We're in the early stages of the same type of conflict, except we have more guns here.
There's no one to drone strike because every time this happens it's "another lone wolf."
There are no leaders. It's just a campaign of stochastic terrorism until everything collapses.
The US civil war isn't what civil wars look like in the modern context. There was a boarder and most of the North was safe. That's not what modern civil wars look like. They look like Serbia.
You have to go to work and on your way to work there's someone who's been sniping people for months. The cops won't do anything because "let's go Brandon" or some shit, the mayor no longer has control over the police, and you still have to go to work because you still have to pay for food. So you duck and weave between cars with rotting drivers to get in to your office and you hope you don't get killed today.
Modern civil wars have no borders. They look like mass shootings, car attacks, snipers, bombings, and other random terrorism. Or they look like the Syrian civil war, with 30 different groups all fighting each other aligning with each other sometimes and fighting others, for decades, sometimes aligned with the government and sometimes against it.
The key thing about Texas is that they have a ton of oil. Even assuming a normal war, the US military lives off oil. If it was quick they could probably do it without dipping in to strategic reserves, but what would happen to the oil infrastructure at the start of the war? Damaging that supply could impact the US ability to wage war, so that's not a risk they're going to take.
If anything comes of this beyond Republicans using it to pump up their base, I'll be surprised.
This is basically what happened at the beginning of the civil war except the south had much better terms, and the confederates decided to attack a US army base because they're assholes and that's what assholes do. They would absolutely do the same again.
No, the civil war 2 looks like mass shootings and terrorists attacks. It started with the Oklahoma City Bombing. Liberals just refuse to acknowledge it's existence.
There's an argument to be made, though, tha the US has always been in a state of civil war. The Spartans would symbolically declare war on their slaves every year. That's kind of what slavery is: a constant war on a portion of the population. That's aside from the whole genocide of native folks. Since the 13th amendment didn't actually ban slavery, it never ended and if you look at standing rock, you know that whole native genocide thing never ended either.
Then when you contextualize all this with stuff like the Red Summer, you realize the recent violence is just the normal terrorism that white supremacists do every now and then to get control back. There probably won't be a war with two side, more just escalation violence from one side leading to the systematic murder a huge chunk of the population. The question is if it will be officially sanctioned like the Holocaust, or continue with the ad-hoc stochastic terrorism like the Rwandan genocide and the Serbian ethnic cleansing.
I expected more snipers, bombings, and attacks on infrastructure but if Trump wins it's definitely gas chambers.
Democrats are too afraid of "real war" to actually do something about this. If they did they might have to deal with the mess for real and open themselves up to political challengers from the left.
Employees aren't afraid anymore so companies are trying to reinstate fear.
It's like how cops shoot people with their hands up. Guess where those cops get their training.
I'm pretty sure the world court would be the ones with jurisdiction. Maybe Bibi could stop by The Hague and ask about how to get that case going...
Some of it forces you to think about what you're doing with your life. That alone is a redeeming value. Most of that means nothing to me or is funny out of context, but the context could make everything. Or it could be bad. I'm not sure that it matters, but it's really difficult to impossible without knowing the context (like, who's the audience).
If I made a joke about tech, I'm guessing you might get it but most folks wouldn't. Does that mean the joke isn't funny or that the other people just aren't in on it?
Oh yeah, totally! Just make sure to record it or it's not art.
No, the indigenous people who created the "mythical creature" say that they mean it literally to describe a real thing and that thing is the psychosis. The modern diagnosis comes from their description of the psychosis.
The difference between you and these people is that they're not afraid to actually do it.
Some are saying things, some are just doing stuff because they can. I'm not convinced it's any less sane than, say, working in finance. It's definitely less harmful.
The thing about art is that it's whatever you can get away with. Sometimes that leaves room for powerful critiques of the system, sometimes it's just random stuff. In order to survive in capitalism, artists have to keep producing art. This means that they're incentiveized to produce things that are meaningless... Which is what most people in society do most of the time.
So these folks take some drugs and externalize the absurdity rather than fume in an office for decades before snapping and shooting a bunch of people or just offing themselves. Is it crazier to throw the absurdity of society back in it's face, or pretend that any of this is OK?
Edit: How many people reading this are pretending to work? You could be outside touching grass. You could be inside by a fire. Every minute you spend pretending to work is a waste of your life. Imagine if you threw your computer against the wall, walked out of the office, covered yourself in paint, and started flopping against a canvas like a fish. Would you experience more joy than you are experiencing right now, trapped at work pretending to do something meaningful? Yeah, I'm gonna go back to work but I'm also not gonna judge.
They're not exactly mythical. It's also a description of a type of psychosis that leads to cannibalism.
There's already enough monsters with an insatiable appetites fed by blood and suffering who's appetite grows the more they consume: billionaires.
We live in a society that's committing suicide. Who's "sane" here?
If it's a display of skill then it's an advertisement, which is useful. Then again, I'm not an archaeologist or historian, and even if I was apparently I'd still have no clue.
Machinists will often have a tuner's cube on their desk. It does have a bit of the same feel.
What happens when the person's principles include hating women
You're describing cops.
I was shot by a fascist. 11 people believed the evidence, one person was also a fascist. Did anyone need to tell the fascist about jury nullification? No. They don't care about the law and never have. That's the point. They already do it all the time. You should know that you can do it too.
So, Fight Club is about how masculinity within patriarchy destroys men. A man who is an isolated consumer isn't allowed to cry because he's confirming to masculinity, he has a mental breakdown and turns to expresses his sadness as violence. At the end of the book he gets in to every fight until his cheeks wear away and he's described as looking like a jack-o'-lantern. After he confronts Tyler and shoots himself, he becomes catatonic and lives in a mental hospital.
The fact that the plans wouldn't actually do anything are part of the point. It's just an unfocused attack on a system that dehumanizes. In the end, it just becomes part of the system he attacked. Which is also his critique of what became ecofascism.
The author is gay. A big element of masculinity is cisgendered heterosexual, as least in the US context and especially in the late 90's when he was writing. He was excluded in some ways from masculinity at that time, while socialized in it. So he has a lot of reasons to explore and decompose masculinity.
Brad Pitt, when playing Tyler, understood the critique as well and continued to push on the what masculinity means. While regularly playing an architypical man, he's often worn dresses. The fact that he can do both demonstrantes the malleability of the definition of masculinity (this is also called "queering" masculinity).
I know all this because that's one of my favorite movies/books. I was in highschool when it came out. I was studying AP English, so I decided to my final paper on absurdism and antiheroes in Fight Club, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and The Good Soldier Ŝvejk. But even after reading it and having a ton of context, I actually didn't really understand it. It wasn't until years later that I was able to revisit it through the lense of feminism that I understood how much of Fight Club is actually feminist.
Even though all the information was available to me, I still didn't get it. Fight Club, Starship Troopers, Rick and Morty, and other films and media that criticize masculinity, violence, and authoritarianism are so often misunderstood by their fans... Like the point of Nirvana's In Bloom. Could the fact that the majority of people who watch these movies completely miss the point make them, by definition, bad art? They fail, fundamentally, to relate their ideas. Isn't that a problem?
I don't think the fact that people don't understand a piece of art makes it bad, and I'm really careful about criticizing art without having context.. especially if I'm not the audience.
Context is super important. For example, a lot of people don't realize that the whole "modern art is shit" meme was super important to Hitler. He claimed that Jews were creating "degenerate art" that degraded German culture. They did art shows that were compilations of things they didn't like or didn't understand before burning them... Kind of like this compilation. So things like criticizing the concept of modern art (especially out of context) or taking about sterilizing people with disabilities that I always push back on. A lot of people don't know the connections with those.
I work in computer security now, and have for like 15 years or so. Almost every vulnerability is someone trying to solve a problem they don't fully understand. Occasionally someone will try to solve a problem that isn't a problem at all and make a problem in the process. Some problems people keep trying to solve when they really need to step away and let a professional handle it, like cryptography.
I've seen too many people make a huge mess trying to solve a problem they didn't totally understand or didn't comprehend the impact of a solution.I always ask myself if a problem needs to be solved before trying to solve it. In a world where people are making money off genocide, starving people, inciting terrorist attacks, and making life unlivable on the planet, is some people acting silly really a thing worth fighting against? It just feels a bit like punching down.